Re: Pom changes

2011-06-29 Thread Benson Margulies
If they update to new versions of the thing with the pom. At least for polemic purposes, imagining a world in which the decision to make use of a new pom feature has the effect of forcing these sticks-in-the-mud to stick to old versions. Let me be more specific about why I don't like the

Re: Pom changes

2011-06-29 Thread Stephen Connolly
On 29 June 2011 12:20, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: If they update to new versions of the thing with the pom. At least for polemic purposes, imagining a world in which the decision to make use of a new pom feature has the effect of forcing these sticks-in-the-mud to stick to

Re: Pom changes

2011-06-29 Thread Benson Margulies
Telling people to edit and maintain two poms is also likely to lead to widespread derision. Here's another thought experiment in design. This may merely be me recapitulating Steven's idea. Say that for Maven 3.1 we wanted to fix this issue once and for all. So, we make maven 3.1 default to

Re: Pom changes

2011-06-29 Thread Nigel Magnay
If tools validate against the schema, they know when a POM is, in fact, valid for its declared model. Thus, any elements that the tool does not recognize are proved to be 'messengers from the future'. It would help enormously if 'messengers from the future' used an appropriate XML

Re: Pom changes

2011-06-29 Thread Benson Margulies
I'm opposed to namespaces for two reasons. One is a global reason, the other applies only to 'core' configuration. The global reason: read all the very cogent writing from the HTML5 process as to why they have run screaming away from namespaces. The more local reason: Consider what started this

Re: Pom changes

2011-06-29 Thread Nigel Magnay
I'm not sure the HTML analogy flies (in particular, I'm not convinced that, say, schema.org isn't just re-invention of namespaces or RDFa via another mechanism). I have no argument that XML namespaces are somewhat klunky, but they are at least standardised and have well understood transformations

Pom changes

2011-06-28 Thread Benson Margulies
This is a new thread for the topic I accidentally started with Steven. I'm fairly new around here, so please try to forgive me for (re)stating the obvious. There is an ecosystem of tools that parse poms. They don't use any library we give them, they just parse them. We want old tools to handle

Re: Pom changes

2011-06-28 Thread Stephen Connolly
maven 2.0.10 is still widely used. and convincing enterprises to upgrade is tricky... even our own model parsing is not forgiving if i recall correctly... so far as 3.0.x too - Stephen --- Sent from my Android phone, so random spelling mistakes, random nonsense words and other nonsense are a

Re: Pom changes

2011-06-28 Thread Benson Margulies
But why do 2.0.10 users need to build against brand-spanking-new poms? And, if they do, could we give them a downconversion tool? On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: maven 2.0.10 is still widely used. and convincing enterprises to upgrade is

Re: Pom changes

2011-06-28 Thread Milos Kleint
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: But why do 2.0.10 users need to build against brand-spanking-new poms? And, if they do, could we give them a downconversion tool? the new poms will arrive to central for everyone to use.. Milos On Tue, Jun 28,

Pom changes in 2.1 (was Re: dependency version conflict resolution)

2008-05-22 Thread Paul Gier
Improved dependency version conflict resolution, and a lot of other important issues either require or would benefit from changing the pom model. As far as I can tell, there have not yet been any changes to this model in the 2.1 branch. So I was wondering what should be the strategy for

Re: Pom changes in 2.1 (was Re: dependency version conflict resolution)

2008-05-22 Thread Jason van Zyl
On 22-May-08, at 7:28 AM, Paul Gier wrote: Improved dependency version conflict resolution, and a lot of other important issues either require or would benefit from changing the pom model. As far as I can tell, there have not yet been any changes to this model in the 2.1 branch. So I was

RE: Pom changes in 2.1 (was Re: dependency version conflict resolution)

2008-05-22 Thread Brian E. Fox
So can we make changes to the model in 2.1, or do we have to work with the existing model? Provide we retain the behavior of old with a flag if the user desires with 2.1 the door is wide open to correct anything we see fit. It's more than that, the poms deployed to central should conform

[jira] Closed: (MEV-21) pom changes for basic hibernate project

2005-08-02 Thread Carlos Sanchez (JIRA)
[ http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MEV-21?page=all ] Carlos Sanchez closed MEV-21: - Resolution: Fixed pom changes for basic hibernate project --- Key: MEV-21 URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse

[jira] Commented: (MEV-21) pom changes for basic hibernate project

2005-07-02 Thread Eric Crampton (JIRA)
be 1.0RC2 (note capitalization difference). That's the only difference I had to make to use the hibernate pom present in the M2 repository as of right now. pom changes for basic hibernate project --- Key: MEV-21 URL: http

[jira] Moved: (MEV-21) pom changes for basic hibernate project

2005-05-26 Thread Brett Porter (JIRA)
: Maven Evangelism (was: Maven 2) pom changes for basic hibernate project --- Key: MEV-21 URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MEV-21 Project: Maven Evangelism Type: Task Components: Dependencies Reporter: Ryan Sonnek

[jira] Created: (MNG-387) pom changes for basic hibernate project

2005-05-13 Thread Ryan Sonnek (JIRA)
pom changes for basic hibernate project --- Key: MNG-387 URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-387 Project: m2 Type: Bug Components: repository-tools Reporter: Ryan Sonnek it seems as if the current m2 repository has

[jira] Commented: (MNG-387) pom changes for basic hibernate project

2005-05-13 Thread Ryan Sonnek (JIRA)
pom changes for basic hibernate project --- Key: MNG-387 URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-387 Project: m2 Type: Bug Components: repository-tools Reporter: Ryan Sonnek it seems as if the current m2